This is a good point. I do remember we were discussing aliases for _key fields but couldn’t find it.
Vovan, Sergi, could you chime in and share the results of that discussion and, probably, a ticket that was created? — Denis > On Mar 15, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <akuznet...@apache.org> wrote: > > Denis, > > I think I understand what do you need. > But may be we can go in some other way, for example, provide some kind of > alias for "_key" field? > In this case no checkbox will be needed. > > Sergi, what do you think about introducing alias for "_key" field in order > for easy migration of existing applications from RDBMS to Ignite. > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Alex K., Igniters, >> >> It’s is stated that an existing JDBC based application that works with a >> relation database should be easily migrated to Apache Ignite if we used Web >> Console and JDBC driver. So, I decided to prove this. >> >> A simple application was created that issues a bunch of SELECT, UPDATE, >> etc. queries. >> >> For instance, the simplest query I had looks like this: >> >> SELECT * FROM city WHERE id = ? >> >> When Web Console is used for the schema importing purposes it doesn’t add >> ‘id’ field to a City POJO and, consequently, doesn’t define index for this >> field. *From technical perspective*, I do understand why we do this - to >> save some memory because cache entries key will be used as ‘id’ instead. >> >> But this breaks the usability in some sense because my simplest query >> above no longer works. >> >> What if we add a special checkbox to Web Console that will add fields like >> ‘id’ to a POJO? If the checkbox is disabled (default) we should show a >> message at the final importing stage saying that fields like ‘id’ has to be >> replaced with ‘_key’. >> >> Thoughts? > > > > > -- > Alexey Kuznetsov
